lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.20-rc1


    On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
    >
    > In total isolation, v2.6.19..0e75f9063f5c55fb0b0b546a7c356f8ec186825e it
    > breaks. Reverting just 0e75f9063f5c55fb0b0b546a7c356f8ec186825e, it works
    > again.
    >
    > So I think this is the source, but I can't explain why it "goes away" before
    > git1 and "comes back" before 2.6.20-rc1.

    Can you see if the kernel state at commit 77d172ce ("[PATCH] fix SG_IO bio
    leak") is good? Ie just do something like

    git checkout -b test-branch 77d172ce

    and compile and test that?

    That commit _should_ be the one that fixed whatever problems that commit
    0e75f906 introduced. It *did* fix it for other - somewhat similar -
    situations.

    That said: Jens - I think 0e75f906 was a mistake. "blk_rq_unmap()" really
    should be passed the "struct bio", not the "struct request *". Right now
    it does something _really_ strange with requests with linked bio's, and I
    don't think your and FUJITA's "leak fix" really works. What happens when
    the bio was a linked list on the request, and you put the old _head_ on
    the request with "rq->bio = bio"? What happens to the other parts of it?

    IOW, I think this is broken. I think we should revert 0e75f906. Or at
    least you should explain to me why it's not broken, and why clearly people
    (eg Alistair) still see problems with it?

    Linus
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.024 / U:0.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site